Policy

fbi-forces-chinese-malware-to-delete-itself-from-thousands-of-us-computers

FBI forces Chinese malware to delete itself from thousands of US computers

The FBI said today that it removed Chinese malware from 4,258 US-based computers and networks by sending commands that forced the malware to use its “self-delete” function.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government paid the Mustang Panda group to develop a version of PlugX malware used to infect, control, and steal information from victim computers, the FBI said. “Since at least 2014, Mustang Panda hackers then infiltrated thousands of computer systems in campaigns targeting US victims, as well as European and Asian governments and businesses, and Chinese dissident groups,” the FBI said.

The malware has been known for years but many Windows computers were still infected while their owners were unaware. The FBI learned of a method to remotely remove the malware from a French law enforcement agency, which had gained access to a command-and-control server that could send commands to infected computers.

“When a computer infected with this variant of PlugX malware is connected to the Internet, the PlugX malware can send a request to communicate with a command-and-control (‘C2’) server, whose IP address is hard-coded in the malware. In reply, the C2 server can send several possible commands to the PlugX malware on the victim computer,” stated an FBI affidavit that was made on December 20 and unsealed today.

As it turns out, the “PlugX malware variant’s native functionality includes a command from a C2 server to ‘self-delete.'” This deletes the application, files created by the malware, and registry keys used to automatically run the PlugX application when the victim computer is started.

FBI forces Chinese malware to delete itself from thousands of US computers Read More »

meta-to-cut-5%-of-employees-deemed-unfit-for-zuckerberg’s-ai-fueled-future

Meta to cut 5% of employees deemed unfit for Zuckerberg’s AI-fueled future

Anticipating that 2025 will be an “intense year” requiring rapid innovation, Mark Zuckerberg reportedly announced that Meta would be cutting 5 percent of its workforce—targeting “lowest performers.”

Bloomberg reviewed the internal memo explaining the cuts, which was posted to Meta’s internal Workplace forum Tuesday. In it, Zuckerberg confirmed that Meta was shifting its strategy to “move out low performers faster” so that Meta can hire new talent to fill those vacancies this year.

“I’ve decided to raise the bar on performance management,” Zuckerberg said. “We typically manage out people who aren’t meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we’re going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle.”

Cuts will likely impact more than 3,600 employees, as Meta’s most recent headcount in September totaled about 72,000 employees. It may not be as straightforward as letting go anyone with an unsatisfactory performance review, as Zuckerberg said that any employee not currently meeting expectations could be spared if Meta is “optimistic about their future performance,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Any employees affected will be notified by February 10 and receive “generous severance,” Zuckerberg’s memo promised.

This is the biggest round of cuts at Meta since 2023, when Meta laid off 10,000 employees during what Zuckerberg dubbed the “year of efficiency.” Those layoffs followed a prior round where 11,000 lost their jobs and Zuckerberg realized that “leaner is better.” He told employees in 2023 that a “surprising result” from reducing the workforce was “that many things have gone faster.”

“A leaner org will execute its highest priorities faster,” Zuckerberg wrote in 2023. “People will be more productive, and their work will be more fun and fulfilling. We will become an even greater magnet for the most talented people. That’s why in our Year of Efficiency, we are focused on canceling projects that are duplicative or lower priority and making every organization as lean as possible.”

Meta to cut 5% of employees deemed unfit for Zuckerberg’s AI-fueled future Read More »

buyers-of-razer’s-bogus-“n95”-zephyr-masks-get-over-$1-million-in-refunds

Buyers of Razer’s bogus “N95” Zephyr masks get over $1 million in refunds

“The Razer Zephyr was conceived to offer a different and innovative face covering option for the community,” the company said at the time. “The FTC’s claims against Razer concerned limited portions of some of the statements relating to the Zephyr. More than two years ago, Razer proactively notified customers that the Zephyr was not a N95 mask, stopped sales, and refunded customers.”

FTC: Only 6 percent of US purchases were refunded

The FTC lawsuit casts doubt on the earlier availability of refunds, saying that Razer “allegedly implemented” a refund policy. Razer provided refunds for less than 6 percent of Zephyr purchases in the US, the FTC said.

“While Defendants purport to have instituted a policy of fully refunding consumers concerned about the filters on January 9, 2022, Defendants did not promote that policy in its January emails to consumers or on its website,” the FTC said.

That’s a reference to a Razer email sent to mask buyers acknowledging that the mask “is not a medical device nor certified as an N95 mask.” The FTC said the Razer email to consumers “did not invite or otherwise indicate that consumers who believed they were purchasing an N95 mask when they purchased the Zephyr could request a refund from Razer.”

Razer customers who sought refunds ran into several kinds of problems, the FTC said. Some “were told that they could not receive a refund because they were outside of Razer’s standard 14-day return policy,” while others “were told that they could not receive a full refund because they had used the disposable filters provided with the Zephyr when they bought the Zephyr in October 2022 or because the Zephyr was no longer sealed and unused,” the lawsuit said.

“Numerous customers were deterred from, or confused regarding their ability to, obtain full refunds because of statements by Defendants’ customer service representatives that they were ineligible for full refunds,” the lawsuit said.

We contacted Razer today and will update this article if it provides further comment.

Buyers of Razer’s bogus “N95” Zephyr masks get over $1 million in refunds Read More »

mastodon’s-founder-cedes-control,-refuses-to-become-next-musk-or-zuckerberg

Mastodon’s founder cedes control, refuses to become next Musk or Zuckerberg

And perhaps in a nod to Meta’s recent changes, Mastodon also vowed to “invest deeply in trust and safety” and ensure “everyone, especially marginalized communities,” feels “safe” on the platform.

To become a more user-focused paradise of “resilient, governable, open and safe digital spaces,” Mastodon is going to need a lot more funding. The blog called for donations to help fund an annual operating budget of $5.1 million (5 million euros) in 2025. That’s a massive leap from the $152,476 (149,400 euros) total operating expenses Mastodon reported in 2023.

Other social networks wary of EU regulations

Mastodon has decided to continue basing its operations in Europe, while still maintaining a separate US-based nonprofit entity as a “fundraising hub,” the blog said.

It will take time, Mastodon said, to “select the appropriate jurisdiction and structure in Europe” before Mastodon can then “determine which other (subsidiary) legal structures are needed to support operations and sustainability.”

While Mastodon is carefully getting re-settled as a nonprofit in Europe, Zuckerberg this week went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to call on Donald Trump to help US tech companies fight European Union fines, Politico reported.

Some critics suggest the recent policy changes on Meta platforms were intended to win Trump’s favor, partly to get Trump on Meta’s side in the fight against the EU’s strict digital laws. According to France24, Musk’s recent combativeness with EU officials suggests Musk might team up with Zuckerberg in that fight (unlike that cage fight pitting the wealthy tech titans against each other that never happened).

Experts told France24 that EU officials may “perhaps wrongly” already be fearful about ruffling Trump’s feathers by targeting his tech allies and would likely need to use the “full legal arsenal” of EU digital laws to “stand up to Big Tech” once Trump’s next term starts.

As Big Tech prepares to continue battling EU regulators, Mastodon appears to be taking a different route, laying roots in Europe and “establishing the appropriate governance and leadership frameworks that reflect the nature and purpose of Mastodon as a whole” and “responsibly serve the community,” its blog said.

“Our core mission remains the same: to create the tools and digital spaces where people can build authentic, constructive online communities free from ads, data exploitation, manipulative algorithms, or corporate monopolies,” Mastodon’s blog said.

Mastodon’s founder cedes control, refuses to become next Musk or Zuckerberg Read More »

new-york-starts-enforcing-$15-broadband-law-that-isps-tried-to-kill

New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

1.7 million New York households lost FCC discount

The order said quick implementation of the law is important because of “developments at the federal level impacting the affordability of broadband service.” About 1.7 million New York households, and 23 million nationwide, used to receive a monthly discount through an FCC program that expired in mid-2024 after Congress failed to provide more funding.

“For this reason, consumer benefit programs assisting low-income households—such as the ABA—are even more critical to ensure that the digital divide for low-income New Yorkers is being addressed,” the New York order said.

New York ISPs can obtain an exemption from the low-cost broadband law if they “provide service to no more than 20,000 households and the Commission determines that compliance with such requirements would result in ‘unreasonable or unsustainable financial impact on the broadband service provider,'” the order said.

Over 40 small ISPs filed for exemptions in 2021 before the law was blocked by a judge. Those ISPs and potentially others will be given one-month exemptions if they file paperwork by Wednesday stating that they meet the subscriber threshold. ISPs must submit detailed financial information by February 15 to obtain longer-term exemptions.

“All other ISPs (i.e., those with more than 20,000 subscribers) must comply with the ABA by January 15, 2025,” the order said. Failure to comply can be punished with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The law applies to wireline, fixed wireless, and satellite providers.

Charter Spectrum currently advertises a $25-per-month plan with 50Mbps speeds for low-income households. Comcast and Optimum have $15 plans. Verizon has a low-income program reducing the cost of some home Internet plans to as low as $20 a month.

Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 12.3 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications, which also owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast.

New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill Read More »

supreme-court-lets-hawaii-sue-oil-companies-over-climate-change-effects

Supreme Court lets Hawaii sue oil companies over climate change effects

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether to block lawsuits that Honolulu filed to seek billions in damages from oil and gas companies over allegedly deceptive marketing campaigns that hid the effects of climate change.

Now those lawsuits can proceed, surely frustrating the fossil fuel industry, which felt that SCOTUS should have weighed in on this key “recurring question of extraordinary importance to the energy industry” raised in lawsuits seeking similarly high damages in several states, CBS News reported.

Defendants Sunoco and Shell, along with 15 other energy companies, had asked the court to intervene and stop the Hawaii lawsuits from proceeding. They had hoped to move the cases out of Hawaii state courts by arguing that interstate pollution is governed by federal law and the Clean Air Act.

The oil and gas companies continue to argue that greenhouse gas emissions “flow from billions of daily choices, over more than a century, by governments, companies, and individuals about what types of fuels to use, and how to use them.” Because of this, the companies believe Honolulu was wrong to demand damages based on the “cumulative effect of worldwide emissions leading to global climate change.”

“In these cases, state and local governments are attempting to assert control over the nation’s energy policies by holding energy companies liable for worldwide conduct in ways that starkly conflict with the policies and priorities of the federal government,” oil and gas companies unsuccessfully argued in their attempt to persuade SCOTUS to grant review. “That flouts this court’s precedents and basic principles of federalism, and the court should put a stop to it.”

Supreme Court lets Hawaii sue oil companies over climate change effects Read More »

elon-musk-wants-courts-to-force-openai-to-auction-off-a-large-ownership-stake

Elon Musk wants courts to force OpenAI to auction off a large ownership stake

Musk, who founded his own AI startup xAI in 2023, has recently stepped up efforts to derail OpenAI’s conversion.

In November, he sought to block the process with a request for a preliminary injunction filed in California. Meta has also thrown its weight behind the suit.

In legal filings from November, Musk’s team wrote: “OpenAI and Microsoft together exploiting Musk’s donations so they can build a for-profit monopoly, one now specifically targeting xAI, is just too much.”

Kathleen Jennings, attorney-general in Delaware—where OpenAI is incorporated—has since said her office was responsible for ensuring that OpenAI’s conversion was in the public interest and determining whether the transaction was at a fair price.

Members of Musk’s camp—wary of Delaware authorities after a state judge rejected a proposed $56 billion pay package for the Tesla boss last month—read that as a rebuke of his efforts to block the conversion, and worry it will be rushed through. They have also argued OpenAI’s PBC conversion should happen in California, where the company has its headquarters.

In a legal filing last week Musk’s attorneys said Delaware’s handling of the matter “does not inspire confidence.”

OpenAI committed to become a public benefit corporation within two years as part of a $6.6 billion funding round in October, which gave it a valuation of $157 billion. If it fails to do so, investors would be able to claw back their money.

There are a number of issues OpenAI is yet to resolve, including negotiating the value of Microsoft’s investment in the PBC. A conversion was not imminent and would be likely to take months, according to the person with knowledge of the company’s thinking.

A spokesperson for OpenAI said: “Elon is engaging in lawfare. We remain focused on our mission and work.” The California and Delaware attorneys-general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Elon Musk wants courts to force OpenAI to auction off a large ownership stake Read More »

microsoft-sues-service-for-creating-illicit-content-with-its-ai-platform

Microsoft sues service for creating illicit content with its AI platform

Microsoft and others forbid using their generative AI systems to create various content. Content that is off limits includes materials that feature or promote sexual exploitation or abuse, is erotic or pornographic, or attacks, denigrates, or excludes people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability status, or similar traits. It also doesn’t allow the creation of content containing threats, intimidation, promotion of physical harm, or other abusive behavior.

Besides expressly banning such usage of its platform, Microsoft has also developed guardrails that inspect both prompts inputted by users and the resulting output for signs the content requested violates any of these terms. These code-based restrictions have been repeatedly bypassed in recent years through hacks, some benign and performed by researchers and others by malicious threat actors.

Microsoft didn’t outline precisely how the defendants’ software was allegedly designed to bypass the guardrails the company had created.

Masada wrote:

Microsoft’s AI services deploy strong safety measures, including built-in safety mitigations at the AI model, platform, and application levels. As alleged in our court filings unsealed today, Microsoft has observed a foreign-based threat–actor group develop sophisticated software that exploited exposed customer credentials scraped from public websites. In doing so, they sought to identify and unlawfully access accounts with certain generative AI services and purposely alter the capabilities of those services. Cybercriminals then used these services and resold access to other malicious actors with detailed instructions on how to use these custom tools to generate harmful and illicit content. Upon discovery, Microsoft revoked cybercriminal access, put in place countermeasures, and enhanced its safeguards to further block such malicious activity in the future.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants’ service violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and constitutes wire fraud, access device fraud, common law trespass, and tortious interference. The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in “any activity herein.”

Microsoft sues service for creating illicit content with its AI platform Read More »

meta-kills-diversity-programs,-claiming-dei-has-become-“too-charged”

Meta kills diversity programs, claiming DEI has become “too charged”

Meta has reportedly ended diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that influenced staff hiring and training, as well as vendor decisions, effective immediately.

According to an internal memo viewed by Axios and verified by Ars, Meta’s vice president of human resources, Janelle Gale, told Meta employees that the shift was due to “legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing.”

It’s another move by Meta that some view as part of the company’s larger effort to align with the incoming Trump administration’s politics. In December, Donald Trump promised to crack down on DEI initiatives at companies and on college campuses, The Guardian reported.

Earlier this week, Meta cut its fact-checking program, which was introduced in 2016 after Trump’s first election to prevent misinformation from spreading. In a statement announcing Meta’s pivot to X’s Community Notes-like approach to fact-checking, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that fact-checkers were “too politically biased” and “destroyed trust” on Meta platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

Trump has also long promised to renew his war on alleged social media censorship while in office. Meta faced backlash this week over leaked rule changes relaxing Meta’s hate speech policies, The Intercept reported, which Zuckerberg said were “out of touch with mainstream discourse.”  Those changes included allowing anti-trans slurs previously banned, as well as permitting women to be called “property” and gay people to be called “mentally ill,” Mashable reported. In a statement, GLAAD said that rolling back safety guardrails risked turning Meta platforms into “unsafe landscapes filled with dangerous hate speech, violence, harassment, and misinformation” and alleged that Meta appeared to be willing to “normalize anti-LGBTQ hatred for profit.”

Meta kills diversity programs, claiming DEI has become “too charged” Read More »

judge-ends-man’s-11-year-quest-to-dig-up-landfill-and-recover-$765m-in-bitcoin

Judge ends man’s 11-year quest to dig up landfill and recover $765M in bitcoin


The landfill owns the trash

Hard drive that could provide access to 8,000 bitcoins is buried at the dump.

Aerial view of a Newport Council landfill site on March 18, 2022 in Newport, Wales. Credit: Getty Images | Matthew Horwood

A British judge ruled against a man who wants to excavate a landfill where he says a hard drive with access to thousands of bitcoins was mistakenly dumped over 11 years ago.

Since 2013, James Howells has been hoping to recover a laptop hard drive that he says contains the private key for cryptocurrency which he says he mined in 2009. We wrote about it at the time, noting that the value of a bitcoin had just passed $1,000, making 7,500 bitcoins worth $7.5 million.

The alleged number of bitcoins has changed a bit, with Howells now saying he lost 8,000 bitcoins. The bitcoin price exceeded $100,000 last month and was worth over $95,636 as of this writing, or $765 million for 8,000 bitcoins.

High Court Judge Keyser KC issued his ruling yesterday, siding with the defendant in Howells v. Newport City Council. Howells has no realistic chance of success at trial, the judge ruled. Howells sought “an order that the defendant either deliver the hard drive or allow his team of experts to excavate the landfill in order to find it, and (in the alternative) compensation equivalent to the value of the Bitcoin that he can no longer access.”

Landfill authority owns the trash

The council said that excavating the landfill site would let harmful substances escape into the environment, endangering residents with “potentially serious risks which raises public health issues and environmental concerns,” the ruling said.

The judge found no “reasonable grounds for bringing this case,” saying it has “no realistic prospect of succeeding if it went to trial and that there is no other compelling reason why it should be disposed of at trial.” He granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing the claim.

The ruling quotes the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which states that “anything delivered to the authority by another person in the course of using the facilities shall belong to the authority and may be dealt with accordingly.” Howells “submitted that section 14(6)(c) merely says that anything so delivered shall belong to the authority but does not say that it shall cease to belong to its former owner,” the ruling said. The judge disagreed, writing that “the words ‘shall belong to the authority’ are unqualified and unrestricted.”

The judge found no reason to determine that the defendant retaining the hard drive is “unconscionable” under the law. “In my view there would be no realistic prospect of a finding that the defendant’s retention of the Hard Drive was unconscionable. The defendant was not retaining it for gain or because it wanted it. It was retaining it because it was buried in landfill,” the ruling said.

Statute of limitations

The claim is also barred by the six-year statute of limitations because Howells “knew the facts material to his claim by November 2013 but did not commence proceedings until May 2024,” the ruling said.

The judge didn’t need to rule on whether the hard drive really contains access to bitcoin, saying that “the only relevant issues in this case concern ownership of, and rights of access to, the Hard Drive.” Howells sought access to the landfill site in Newport, Wales, starting in November 2013 but local officials refused. He says the hard drive is 2½ inches in size and has a wallet.dat file containing a private key that can enable access to the bitcoin.

The city council said excavation would breach the terms of its license with NRW (Natural Resources Body for Wales), cause health and safety risks for staff, risk damage from ground movement during or after excavation work, and prevent the council from “discharg[ing] its statutory waste disposal functions whilst the site is excavated.”

After his November 2013 outreach, Howells “made repeated requests to the defendant for access to the Site in order to find and retrieve the Hard Drive, but these were largely ignored by the defendant,” the ruling said. “The claimant then set about securing investment and expertise to enable a team of experts to undertake a landfill excavation and recovery operation and in 2023 he began to advance his case formally to the defendant.”

“This ruling has taken everything from me”

The BBC yesterday quoted Howells as saying that “the case being struck out at the earliest hearing doesn’t even give me the opportunity to explain myself or an opportunity for justice in any shape or form. There was so much more that could have been explained in a full trial and that’s what I was expecting.”

“It’s not about greed, I’m happy to share the proceeds but nobody in a position of power will have a decent conversation with me… This ruling has taken everything from me and left me with nothing. It’s the great British injustice system striking again,” he said.

In January 2021, CNN wrote that Howells “has offered to pay the council a quarter of the current value of the hoard, which he says could be distributed to local residents.”

Why the hard drive was dumped

As for how the hard drive went to the landfill, Howells claims it “was taken from his home without his permission or consent on the morning of 5th August 2013,” the ruling said.

His ex-girlfriend, Halfina Eddy-Evans, said in a recent interview with the Daily Mail that she brought the hard drive and other unwanted belongings to the dump, at Howells’ request. “I thought he should be running his errands, not me, but I did it to help out… I’d love nothing more than him to find it. I’m sick and tired of hearing about it,” she said.

The ruling describes Howells’ version of the 2013 event as follows:

In his drawers he found two hard drives: one was the Hard Drive, and the other was a blank hard drive that contained no data. He meant to throw out the blank hard drive, but instead he mistakenly picked up the Hard Drive and put it into one of the black bin-liners. He then left the two bin bags downstairs in his house and asked his partner at the time to take them to the landfill at the Site the following day after completing the school run. However, she said that she did not want to take the black bin bags to the Site and refused to do so. The claimant was not overly concerned at her refusal, because he decided that on the following morning he would check to make sure that he had put the correct hard drive in the bin bags. However, when he awoke at 9 o’clock the following morning he found that his partner had had a change of heart and had already taken the bin bags to the Site and manually deposited them into the general waste bins at the Site.

The ruling cited testimony that “the landfill contains around 350,000 tonnes of waste with a further 50,000 tonnes added annually. Once the skip at the reception area is full, the waste is emptied into the landfill, where it is then covered with inert material to minimise the release of gases or liquids and then compacted.”

Howells thinks data can be recovered

Howells believes the hard drive may still be usable, according to a 2021 New Yorker article. “Although the covering of the drive was metal, the disk inside was glass,” reporter D.T. Max wrote. “‘It’s actually coated in a cobalt layer that is anti-corrosive,’ Howells told me. He conceded that the hard drive would have been subjected to some compacting when it was layered in with soil and other trash. But, however rough the process, it might not have fractured the disk and destroyed the drive’s contents.”

The 2021 CNN report quoted Howells as saying he wanted to “dig a specific area of the landfill based on a grid reference system and recover the hard drive whilst adhering to all safety and environmental standards. The drive would then be presented to data recovery specialists who can rebuild the drive from scratch with new parts and attempt to recover the tiny piece of data that I need in order to access the bitcoins.”

Yesterday’s ruling said that according to a report prepared for Howells, “in November 2013 the Hard Drive was ‘probably’ located ‘within an area of approximately 2,000 square metres of the site’ and ‘within an approximate volume of 10,000-15,000 tonnes of waste.'”

“It would be a criminal offence for the claimant or anyone acting for him to sort over or disturb any refuse deposited at the Site, unless he were authorised to do so by the defendant: see section 27 of CPA 1974 and section 60 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,” the ruling said. “The defendant could only give such authorisation, or excavate the Site itself, if it were first to apply for and obtain a new environmental permit from NRW, as the Schedule of permitted activities in its existing permit does not allow excavation of the Site.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Judge ends man’s 11-year quest to dig up landfill and recover $765M in bitcoin Read More »

coal-likely-to-go-away-even-without-epa’s-power-plant-regulations

Coal likely to go away even without EPA’s power plant regulations


Set to be killed by Trump, the rules mostly lock in existing trends.

In April last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released its latest attempt to regulate the carbon emissions of power plants under the Clean Air Act. It’s something the EPA has been required to do since a 2007 Supreme Court decision that settled a case that started during the Clinton administration. The latest effort seemed like the most aggressive yet, forcing coal plants to retire or install carbon capture equipment and making it difficult for some natural gas plants to operate without capturing carbon or burning green hydrogen.

Yet, according to a new analysis published in Thursday’s edition of Science, they wouldn’t likely have a dramatic effect on the US’s future emissions even if they were to survive a court challenge. Instead, the analysis suggests the rules serve more like a backstop to prevent other policy changes and increased demand from countering the progress that would otherwise be made. This is just as well, given that the rules are inevitably going to be eliminated by the incoming Trump administration.

A long time coming

The net result of a number of Supreme Court decisions is that greenhouse gasses are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA needed to determine whether they posed a threat to people. George W. Bush’s EPA dutifully performed that analysis but sat on the results until its second term ended, leaving it to the Obama administration to reach the same conclusion. The EPA went on to formulate rules for limiting carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, but these were rapidly made irrelevant because renewable power and natural gas began displacing coal even without the EPA’s encouragement.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration replaced those rules with ones designed to accomplish even less, which were thrown out by a court just before Biden’s inauguration. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule on the now-even-more-irrelevant Obama rules, determining that the EPA could only regulate carbon emissions at the level of individual power plants rather than at the level of the grid.

All of that set the stage for the latest EPA rules, which were formulated by the Biden administration’s EPA. Forced by the court to regulate individual power plants, the EPA allowed coal plants that were set to retire within the decade to continue to operate as they have. Anything that would remain operational longer would need to either switch fuels or install carbon capture equipment. Similarly, natural gas plants were regulated based on how frequently they were operational; those that ran less than 40 percent of the time could face significant new regulations. More than that, and they’d have to capture carbon or burn a fuel mixture that is primarily hydrogen produced without carbon emissions.

While the Biden EPA’s rules are currently making their way through the courts, they’re sure to be pulled in short order by the incoming Trump administration, making the court case moot. Nevertheless, people had started to analyze their potential impact before it was clear there would be an incoming Trump administration. And the analysis is valuable in the sense that it will highlight what will be lost when the rules are eliminated.

By some measures, the answer is not all that much. But the answer is also very dependent upon whether the Trump administration engages in an all-out assault on renewable energy.

Regulatory impact

The work relies on the fact that various researchers and organizations have developed models to explore how the US electric grid can economically meet demand under different conditions, including different regulatory environments. The researchers obtained nine of them and ran them with and without the EPA’s proposed rules to determine their impact.

On its own, eliminating the rules has a relatively minor impact. Without the rules, the US grid’s 2040 carbon dioxide emissions would end up between 60 and 85 percent lower than they were in 2005. With the rules, the range shifts to between 75 and 85 percent—in essence, the rules reduce the uncertainty about the outcomes that involve the least change.

That’s primarily because of how they’re structured. Mostly, they target coal plants, as these account for nearly half of the US grid’s emissions despite supplying only about 15 percent of its power. They’ve already been closing at a rapid clip, and would likely continue to do so even without the EPA’s encouragement.

Natural gas plants, the other major source of carbon emissions, would primarily respond to the new rules by operating less than 40 percent of the time, thus avoiding stringent regulation while still allowing them to handle periods where renewable power underproduces. And we now have a sufficiently large fleet of natural gas plants that demand can be met without a major increase in construction, even with most plants operating at just 40 percent of their rated capacity. The continued growth of renewables and storage also contributes to making this possible.

One irony of the response seen in the models is that it suggests that two key pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are largely irrelevant. The IRA provides benefits for the deployment of carbon capture and the production of green hydrogen (meaning hydrogen produced without carbon emissions). But it’s likely that, even with these credits, the economics wouldn’t favor the use of these technologies when alternatives like renewables plus storage are available. The IRA also provides tax credits for deploying renewables and storage, pushing the economics even further in their favor.

Since not a lot changes, the rules don’t really affect the cost of electricity significantly. Their presence boosts costs by an estimated 0.5 to 3.7 percent in 2050 compared to a scenario where the rules aren’t implemented. As a result, the wholesale price of electricity changes by only two percent.

A backstop

That said, the team behind the analysis argues that, depending on other factors, the rules could play a significant role. Trump has suggested he will target all of Biden’s energy policies, and that would include the IRA itself. Its repeal could significantly slow the growth of renewable energy in the US, as could continued problems with expanding the grid to incorporate new renewable capacity.

In addition, the US is seeing demand for electricity rise at a faster pace in 2023 than in the decade leading up to it. While it’s still unclear whether that’s a result of new demand or simply weather conditions boosting the use of electricity in heating and cooling, there are several factors that could easily boost the use of electricity in coming years: the electrification of transport, rising data center use, and the electrification of appliances and home heating.

Should these raise demand sufficiently, then it could make continued coal use economical in the absence of the EPA rules. “The rules … can be viewed as backstops against higher emissions outcomes under futures with improved coal plant economics,” the paper suggests, “which could occur with higher demand, slower renewables deployment from interconnection and permitting delays, or higher natural gas prices.”

And it may be the only backstop we have. The report also notes that a number of states have already set aggressive emissions reduction targets, including some for net zero by 2050. But these don’t serve as a substitute for federal climate policy, given that the states that are taking these steps use very little coal in the first place.

Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.adt5665  (About DOIs).

Photo of John Timmer

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Coal likely to go away even without EPA’s power plant regulations Read More »

us-selling-69k-seized-bitcoins-could-mess-with-trump-plans-for-crypto-reserve

US selling 69K seized bitcoins could mess with Trump plans for crypto reserve

At the end of 2024, a US court authorized the Department of Justice to sell 69,370 bitcoins from “the largest cryptocurrency seizure in history.”

At bitcoin’s current price, just under $92,000, these bitcoins are worth nearly $6.4 billion, and crypto outlets are reporting that DOJ officials have said they’re planning to proceed with selling off the assets consistent with the court’s order. The DOJ had reportedly argued that bitcoin’s price volatility was a pressing reason to push for permission for the sale.

Ars has reached out to the DOJ for comment and will update the story with any new information regarding next steps.

A hacker initially stole these bitcoins from Silk Road—an illegal online marketplace where goods could only be bought and sold with bitcoins—in 2012, shortly before the US government shut down the marketplace. The US later discovered the stolen bitcoins in 2020 while conducting further investigations of Silk Road, eventually securing a consent agreement that year from the hacker, who signed the bitcoins over to the government.

Whether the government’s seizure of those bitcoins was proper has been disputed by Battle Born Investments, a company that purchased the assets of bankruptcy estate from an individual who they believed to be either the hacker whose bitcoins were seized or someone “associated with him.”

After a court battle failed to return the bitcoins, Battle Born attempted to unmask the hacker through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which sparked a new court fight. But ultimately, in late December, the court agreed with the US government that the hacker had a right to privacy as someone who was the subject of a criminal investigation and shouldn’t be unmasked. That ended Battle Born’s claim to the bitcoins and cleared the way for the government’s sale.

US selling 69K seized bitcoins could mess with Trump plans for crypto reserve Read More »